This former Marine officer and veteran of the Iraq War, working with the Human Rights Campaign to lift the ban, spoke out against Republican silence on the repeal of DADT in last night’s debate:
As much as Republican candidates want to ignore or refuse to deal with this issue, it will not go away. We have example after example of men and women like Antonio Agnone, Eric Alva, Jason Knight and even badly needed Arabic translators like Steven Benjamin (see video below) serving honorably and in combat with no effect on “unit cohesion”. We’ve seen changing attitudes in our society and the military itself regarding the service of gays, along with just about every one of our NATO Allies who already experienced lifting their own bans on homosexual soldiers with little problems. Pandering to the extreme Right may buy the GOP votes in the short term but this will come back to bite them in the ass and cost them dearly far sooner than they think. In the meantime, what is this doing to our efforts in the GWOT when competent personnel that are very much needed are turned away or discharged for being gay? Apparently votes matter more to some Republicans than the best interests of our nation and victory in the GWOT. There is much to criticize the Democrats for, particularly on matters of defense, but on lifting the ban they are ahead of the Republicans. How sad that even such conservative icons as Barry Goldwater would be tarred with being a “liberal” because he didn’t toe some absurd extremist line that has captured today’s GOP. As Goldwater rightly observed:
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
I am so tired of having to fight this asinine policy, yet for the sake of those serving now and those to come in the future but also for the military that I love this battle must be fought until this discriminatory law is repealed.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
Too bad we can’t get Goldwater to run again…
Or maybe Reagan, who didn’t say much about it, but did oppose Briggs in California at a time when it could have severly hurt his presidential aspirations…
Or if Giuliani would just show a little more of that backbone that he talks up all the time, it would be nice (that is, assuming his publicly wavering support is just a political affectation).
But fortunately in the younger generation of the Republican party I have come into contact with a lot more ‘Goldwaters’, so that’s a good sign for the future, at least.
Chase from previous very long thread said:
the military discharged a total of 20 Arabic and 6 Farsi translators between 1998 and 2004.
I said:
Dammit, this is the SECOND Democrat I’ve agreed with today, though Chase is more palatable than Ian. That’s twenty-six translators (that we know of) that should be on the front line of the GWOT. Twenty-six may sound like a small number, but not having those people involve in the GWOT is a waste of talent for no good reason. And this isn’t just about translators. What is the tally of all those given the boot since the last numbers were release in 2004? If we don’t have the will to use all the resources available to win the war, then we really have lost.
So Steven Benjamin in the second video says the current number is 58. I wonder how many arabic translators are employed by the military, so we can figure out what ratio the 58 represents to that specific field of duty.
Oops. My blockquote didn’t work. “Dammit” paragraph should have been in BQ’s.
DADT is fine with me. Perhaps non-combat personnel can be recruited under a different policy, but I don’t see why it’s necessary that gay people serve openly in combat units. I don’t see why it’s necessary that women serve in combat units. Our military is not a thought experiment and I don’t want congressional social engineers telling our generals how to do their jobs. The purpose of our military is to win wars. A gay man can serve just as well as a straight one and DADT recognizes that, understanding that the combat unit takes precedence over any individual’s personal issue — that the individual does not have the right to force the unit to confront the issue unrelated to the unit’s purpose. Wanna serve while openly gay? Simple. Don’t tell or be a policeman. Everyone knows the policy prior to recruitment, so deal with it.
Have we descended to the point where all manner of discrimination must be stamped out with our self-righteous little jackboots?
(That ought to stir things up. I’m trying to see if we can get this thread past 300 comments.)
HH: Our military is not a thought experiment and I don’t want congressional social engineers telling our generals how to do their jobs. The purpose of our military is to win wars. A gay man can serve just as well as a straight one and DADT recognizes that, understanding that the combat unit takes precedence over any individual’s personal issue — that the individual does not have the right to force the unit to confront the issue unrelated to the unit’s purpose.
I won’t repeat the standard replies to this, but I am curious whether you believe we should end joint-combat operations with our Allies who do allow gays to openly serve in their militaries. You know, such Allies that are currently fighting alongside us in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Cohesion is not only necessary for individual units, but between services as well yet we have a glaring discrepancy between policies here. If openly gay soldiers present such an “intolerable risk”, as McCain puts it, how then can we rely upon Allies which bring such a hindrance to the battlefield?
Have we descended to the point where all manner of discrimination must be stamped out with our self-righteous little jackboots?
Nope, just the ones that have no bearing on the mission.
(That ought to stir things up. I’m trying to see if we can get this thread past 300 comments.)
You may get your wish. 😉 This is why I dropped out of the immigration thread, too much to keep up with especially when I’ve been busy.
Well that’s an asinine argument. You’re just trying to provoke a flame war aren’t you? If not, then I suggest you meet gay vets and see how they react about your crap.
Needless to say, DADT is a policy which causes deception and undermines the honor gay soldiers, a virtue that is primarily emphasized in the armed forces. It is true that unit cohesion is more important than the individual under critical situations, however coming out in the military has actually increased unit cohesion in the Canadian and British Armed Forces, because honesty and openness reinforces bonds and trust between comrades.
So much for the Republicans supporting the troops. Maybe Fred Thompson has a more principled answer over the issue, but I somehow doubt it.
Good post, John.
#4 – HardHobbit, you’ve voiced what is probably the popular position on this blog, in discussions we’ve had in 2005 and 2006 before you came. CP wrote a series of posts, not exactly defending DADT, but explaining the situation is more complicated than many understand.
I think we should get rid of DADT for a reason rarely mentioned: It enables deserters. A straight (or gay, bi, whatever) soldier can get out of their service contract basically by raising their hand and saying, “I am gay”. I’m oversimplifying, but it’s happened.
Also, lest we forget, DADT is supposed to be DADTDP… and, lest we forget, DP (Don’t Pursue) has not been implemented. I could live with DADT for exactly the reasons you stated, HardHobbit, if we only just got DP in there as well, like it was supposed to be.
(It would be interesting to know how many of the 58 translators announced their sexuality in defiance of DADT, vs. how many kept honorably silent and were witch-hunted out. I would expect a balance on the order of, say, 8 vs. 50.)
Our military is not a thought experiment and I don’t want congressional social engineers telling our generals how to do their jobs.
But that EXACTLY what DADT is, congressional social engineers telling our generals how to do their jobs.
The purpose of our military is to win wars. A gay man can serve just as well as a straight one and DADT recognizes that
No, it does just the opposite. If they though a gay man can serve just as well as a straight man, there would be no reason to kick them out. I came to terms with my sexuality in San Diego in the 80’s, and befriended many gay soldiers hiding from the powers that be. There are many soldiers like Steve Benjamin, who served among their fellow soldiers with no problems… until the political process found them and forced them to either lie or quit. I don’t know what the current estimate of the % of gays in the military is, but if DADT were lifted tomorrow and soldiers could safely reveal their orientation with no threat of policy repercussions, the amount of gays actually serving in the forces would probably be close to triple the official estimated %.
understanding that the combat unit takes precedence over any individual’s personal issue — that the individual does not have the right to force the unit to confront the issue unrelated to the unit’s purpose.
Egads! What do you think these guys are, robots? We’re individuals. Every single person in uniform brings “individual personal issues” to their unit. I was not in the military, but I suspect that personnel who have a hard time controlling their temper or have “issues” with drugs are as or more disruptive that the run of the mill homo.
What’s with no blogging for what, 5 days? Shesh.
DADT, the military is remarkable at adjusting. Whether it was to integrating blacks or women, etc. It takes a while and it is sometimes messy. When I was in the Army in the early 70’s, drug abuse was rampant. The services went to drug testing when it was in it’s infancy in the mid 70’s and is now virtually drug free. So to those who say the armed forces aren’t for societal experimentation I say you are inaccurate. The military has proven before they can be cutting edge. And I bet they can adjust to gays in their ranks. As a country we need to get to a point where, we are just viewed as people not as predators or oddities. It may take the military 10 years to transition to more open minded thinking but let’s get the clock started now. Seeing pictures of white only drinking fountains or “colored only” lunch counters from just 50 years ago is unsettling. We can change. The services will follow if civilian leaders set a new course.
To have the best military, you need to have the most qualified individual possible in each role, whether pilot, infantry, navy, planning strategy, etc.
When you eliminate a part of the prospective pool of applicants, you cannot, by definition, have the best individual possible in each role, thereby lowering the quality of the military.
Another issue to consider is that some people cannot pass for straight. e.g. Nate Berkus, Will Wikle, etc. are examples. Most people identify them as gay on seeing them.
There are many benefits to having served in the military, a partial list of which includes subsidized college education, early retirement, VA financing and for officers, heavily discounted loans, insurance, and credit through USAA for the rest of their life.
The military has often been a way out of poverty for many Americans, who could not otherwise attend university. I know it was for my father.
Precluding gays from serving in the military prevents them from availing themselves of these benefits and is a not-so-subtle form of economic discrimination.
Just my opinion.
#12 – There we go again, with the group identity and the framing of issues in terms of what benefits our group is getting.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. And gays, as a group, are hardly economically downtrodden.
#11 – Today’s military eliminates most people, for all kinds of reasons. Even were I young and in my prime and (genuinely) straight, I could not have gotten in.
The military has not figured out how to co-exist with sexual possibility. Even women are still housed separately. Whatever. It doesn’t bother me. Gays are allowed in, if they understand they’re on thin ice sexually and keep it down. Wonderful. Where I get off the DADT train, is where they actually witch-hunt honorable gays who are fulfilling their end of the deal and keeping it dialed way down – That’s wrong.
General question – Diogenes, are you intentionally saying you’re a cynic?
Today’s military eliminates most people, for all kinds of reasons.
If the Marines and the Army can turn down 3 Citadel graduates (my brother and his pards) during a war, I’m hard pressed to buy into the notion that they’re desperate for warm bodies.
Further, there’s all this pi$$ing and moaning about however many translaters were let go. How many replaced them? I believe it was NDT who mentioned that they were, in fact, replaced.
When I served in the military from 1942 to 1946, DADT was unheard of. There was a good reason. There was no need for it. About 15 years ago when DADT was a hot item in the MSM, I had many WW2 buddies still living. I asked each one if anyone in their outfit had been kicked out account of being gay. They knew of noone. One ex-Navy officer said, “Yes, we knew that there were four on our ship that were gay”.
Just before my outfit was sent overseas, one sholdier decided that he did not want to go. He was from NYC and someone there told him that he would be discharged if he reported that he was a homosexual. One night he went in Capt. Anderson’s tent and told him that he was a homosexual and wanted to come to bed with him. The Captain said. “Fine. Come on”. The soldier backed out of the tent but by the next day the story got around and no one doubted that Capt. Anderson didn’t mean it.
Then he tried wetting in bed. But by then everyone knew what he was up to and they left him to sleep in it. He was put then on KP. The mess sgt. gave him the job of mopping the floor and washing pots and pans. After he mopped the floor, he used the mop to wash the pots and pans. When the mess sgt. saw him, he actually ran him out of the mess hall and he went to the Captain and said, “If that man ever comes back into my mess hall, I am going to kill him”. The Captain didn’t want a muder on his hands just as we were going overseas, so he got a transfer for the soldier. After the War was over, one of my buddies got a letter from him. He sat the war out in Iceland.
ILC and TGC, very well put. When will we start identifying ourselves as “Americans” for once?
The armed forces should not be a social experiment by the powers-that-be on the Potomac. (That’s the river in DC, for those of you libtards who went to public school.) The armed forces should be the best fighters that we can produce.
A lot of people think that the armed forces are “peacekeepers.” That is typical PC blather; soldiers and sailors are supposed to kill people and break things. Deal with it.
Regards,
Peter H.
All the GOP candidates know how their bread is buttered. Of course none of then will stick their necks out (like Reagan did on the Briggs initiative or Goldwater speaking out later in life). They are first & foremost politicians, so let the groveling begin.
One thing that I’ve always wondered: how come so many translators were gay? Is it something special about us that we are able to translate while straights aren’t?
John W – Interesting story, and thanks for your service!
I noted that every GOP candidate (including Giuliani and Romney whom previously supported a repeal of DADT to allow LGBT servicemembers to serve freely). now opposes allowing LGBT servicemembers to serve openly. Meanwhile, felons and illegal aliens can serve openly.
When the our Generals are incompetent and are trying to push their dominionist social engineering on our armed forces, Congress should get involved. The military doesn’t belong to the generals, it belongs to the people. Its obvious that virtually the entire leadership of our Armed forces is incompetent. They are wrong on this issue. Period.
If you believe that ALL gays are prissy fags that are too girly to serve in the military, vote Republican. If you think that all gays rape the first straight man they find attractive, vote Republican. If you think that felons and illegal aliens should defend our country before queers, vote republican. If you think the dominionist rantings of a few flat earthers should dictacte the policies of our military, vote Republican.
We’re fighting for freedoms overseas that our military denies to its’ own members.
I won’t repeat the standard replies to this, but I am curious whether you believe we should end joint-combat operations with our Allies who do allow gays to openly serve in their militaries.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, John, but really, ours are the only combat forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The British, Australian, and Canadian contingents are primarily support, and are forbidden in most cases from engaging in combat. They are primarily concerned with holding and securing cities, i.e. Kabul and Basra, while our troops are the ones who are actually going out and looking for terrorists, insurgents, and whatnot.
In short, “joint combat operations” is a nice way of saying they’re minding the shops and playing policeman.
Meanwhile, to Xeno’s:
If not, then I suggest you meet gay vets and see how they react about your crap.
i’d be more interested in knowing how they react to the gay leftists and Democrats, as well as their allies, who call our soldiers “baby-killers”, insist they’re “war criminals”, who ban JROTC, and who are trying to ban the Blue Angels from performing.
I have not seen a single gay group — or SLDN, for that matter — speak out about antimilitary hate and bigotry among gays. But damned if every one of them doesn’t whine about DADT and how it prevents gays from serving in the armed forces (that the vast majority of them obviously disdain, loathe, and want no part of).
And HardHobbit, I totally agree with you.
“If you believe that ALL gays are prissy fags that are too girly to serve in the military, vote Republican. If you think that all gays rape the first straight man they find attractive, vote Republican.”
Gee, Tom, I thought those were the prerequisites for gays to vote Democrat. I for one am not “girly” or “prissy” and I sure as hell don’t believe that any would-be soldier would be described as such.
You have actually brought up Peter’s Principle of Politics #69 – “The liberal gay left movement was created in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of American society.”
Prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
It would be a policy change, not a social experiment. It’s not a social experiment because the military is already integrated in regard to sexual orientation. There are already gay individuals serving in combat, always have been and always will be. Being young and living in an area with a lot of military personnel, more of my gay friends are members of the military than any other profession.
The policy change would thus simply be, we will no longer fire or refuse to hire otherwise qualified individuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
I can’t believe any gay person would support the ban. It’s unconscionable. That’s akin to a black South African supporting apartheid. It’s pathetic.
Great point.
Granted, it’s not their primary mission. But even so, I’d think they would be, say, 30% or 50% as interested in fighting anti-military prejudice among gays, as they are in fighting anti-gay prejudice among our military.
Just like I’d think LCR would want to spread Republican ideas among gays – like America = good, low taxes = gay rights, powerful GWOT = gay rights, private Social Security = gay rights – at least as much they spread gay-ety among Republicans. But maybe that’s just me.
John, yep. I saw you beat a hasty retreat to (ironically) post re. DADT. Nice. I even wrote to you in French and you cut and ran. What more can a guy do? You think I’m sitting here typing away in a Pepe le Pew costume? Sheesh. (I don’t blame you; I made a few attempts at reason, but gave up. Noonan’s article wasn’t even about immigration, but so be it.)
O.K. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to never having served in our armed forces. So before you, reader, write an incredulous response, be aware that I’m well aware of my ignorance on this issue. The following are just a few random thoughts.
1. The only way I would accept the change you advocate is if it came as a recommendation from the military itself. If generals and other military personnel insisted that gay soldiers be allowed to serve openly, then so be it. In any event, I will not stand for politicians running our armed forces. Keep your manicured mitts off my boys.
2. Do gays serve honorably in the military? Of course — they always have. Does homosexual activity take place in the military? Anyone who thinks it doesn’t is incredibly naive. I’ve had a couple of encounters with former military guys (one gay, one not) and I have no reason to doubt their stories. Should such activity between soldiers be anything but furtive? No.
3. Per John’s point re. joint operations with forces that allow open homosexuality, I don’t know the answer. Never having served, I’m not familiar with how closely combat units of multiple nations are inter-dependent and whether they inhabit close quarters, etc. From my observations of this current war, I doubt British and American troops are showering together simply because the missions deployed seem to be based upon command only, whose divisions are drawn along national lines. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen nor heard of Americans and troops of another nation intermingling to the point they are living together, are serving shoulder-to-shoulder, etc. as a matter of standard joint-op policy. Openly gay soldiers are likely a remote issue on the battlefield (which is John’s main point), but with all due respect to John and to Barry Goldwater, soldiers do more than just fight. They eat, sleep, bathe, jest, play sports, lust, love, and all other things humans do. Many are young, hormonal, impressionable, ignorant, away from home for the first time, want to experiment, and want to impress their comrades with their masculinity. In a close, tight atmosphere whose sole purpose exists for fighting, differences are magnified and results are likely often unpredictable.
4. Would a policy that allows open homosexuality encourage relationships between soldiers? Would relationships between soldiers encourage antipathy or the formation of inter-unit alliances that would undermine dispassionate allegiance to the unit and its objectives? How would that policy change the dynamics of the chain of command? Would that policy encourage targeting a homosexual soldier for discrimination within the ranks, for ridicule, or worse? Would it make life better for a small minority of soldiers and/or improve the military for everyone? How would that policy effect recruitment if at all?
5. The main question is: Should the military directly reflect civilian life, meaning should the laws, rules, and mores of American society apply to our military? Isn’t that the idea that is driving this issue? Does the change being advocated sacrifice more than is gained?
And just a reminder, here is a partial list of countries that do and do not allow gays to openly serve in the military.
Countries which do:Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britian, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemborg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switerland, Taiwan, and Thailand.
Countries which do not:Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Saudia Arabia, Syria, The United States, Venezula, Yemen.
That’s quite the company our nation is keeping there. Notice that our two main allies in the War On Terror, Great Britan and Israel, are on the other list.
Dallas,
My first comment was deliberately provocative so while I appreciate your agreement, I have to admit that I’m not sure I agree with me. (See my second comment for an example of my ignorance.) I’d appreciate you extemporizing on my general theme so that I can understand why I wrote it.
sonic,
The passage of DADT didn’t really substantively change what was the current status of gays in the military and this is why it is so loathed, particularly by those who wouldn’t deign to serve and if drafted, wouldn’t last a single day in boot camp. DADT merely codifies and validates what was the unsaid discrimination against open homosexuality, so while it may appear on the surface as engineering (meaning Congress telling the Joint Chiefs how to operate), I suspect it is the other way around. And frankly, that’s as it should be.
“I came to terms with my sexuality in San Diego in the 80’s…”
I too roughly came to terms in the (late) ’80s. A friend and I were found under the foosball table while Styx’s Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man) was playing in the background.
“There are many soldiers like Steve Benjamin, who served among their fellow soldiers with no problems… until the political process found them and forced them to either lie or quit.”
How has DADT changed this scenario from the policy prior to DADT? Once again, DADT didn’t really change the military’s treatment of homosexuals except Don’t Ask, as far as I know. We both disagree with the current policy of how a homosexual is treated once found out. I would advocate moving them to a non-combat unit or service rather than prosecution (but this idea brings up other issues) whereas you would like open service. I happen to disagree.
“…if DADT were lifted tomorrow and soldiers could safely reveal their orientation with no threat of policy repercussions, the amount of gays actually serving in the forces would probably be close to triple the official estimated %.”
How do you know this? From whence comes your data?
“Egads! What do you think these guys are, robots? We’re individuals. Every single person in uniform brings “individual personal issues” to their unit. I was not in the military, but I suspect that personnel who have a hard time controlling their temper or have “issues” with drugs are as or more disruptive that the run of the mill homo.”
Different personal issues should be treated with different measures. For the vast majority of humans (including soldiers), drug abuse is a behavior and can be controlled. Sexual orientation is not mere behavior and can have a far different effect on the surroundings than a drug problem. It’s simply not a good analogy, in my opinion.
So you think that the current GOP policy of firing anyone that is found out to be Gay is correct? While the GOP has no problem with felons and illegal ailiens serving openly? The proponents of this policy (all GOP candidates) are implicitly calling all Gay men queers that are too girlie and weak to be real men.
Hard Hobbit and NDT, so you both support drumming LGBT soldiers out of the military?
Does anyone think that it is anti-military for a private institution to demand that recruiters have non-discrimination policies in order to recruit on campus? Is that what the anti-military leftism qualifies in y’alls book? That someone would somehow dare attack the military leaderships’ discriminatory politices?
NDT:
That may be largely how it has evolved today but that is not true at all for the operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s no surprise that the United States has shouldered the bulk of both, but they were not alone and they relied upon their NATO Allies like the UK and Australia. These two powers alone contributed special forces and combat units from the beginning. Attempting to dismiss their roles because they have scaled down their own commitments since 2002-03 is blatantly dishonest, factually untrue and an insult to the sacrifices their own militaries have made. These are our friends and Allies, not enemies to be treated as such. Despite your attempt to dismiss them, the question still remains: if gays openly serving present such an “intolerable risk” than how can we have conducted joint combat operations with these Allies, continue to remain allied to them in such things as NATO, etc.? What this glaring discrepancy shows is that the excuses given for DADT are bullshit and the example our Allies lifting their own gay bans witnesses this as well.
A fair question, but not one which I find relevant to the subject matter at hand. Yet their failures do not sustain the validity of DADT.
Tom:
Yes, yes and yes. The argument is not with the leadership of the military but with the President and Congress. Thanks to Bill Clinton and both parties in Congress, DADT is the law of the land and not just military regulation. The armed forces are bound to respect that law whether they like it or not, which is why it needs to be repealed.
HH:
Ha! 😛 I’m in the midst of a move, among other things, so I’m only on the puter during breaks. That thread grew to be so long that responding became too much to catch up.
You mean like how the military was forced to integrate? The military is loathe to change and afraid of the unknown. That’s not always a bad thing but it can be at times. This is not how our system works, HH, the politicians DO run our armed forces whether the generals and admirals like that or not. Such is the oath they took when they joined the service. Now too much interference can lead to disaster (the name Johnson springs to mind) but it is a fact the Pentagon has to live with. The military answers to the People through their representatives and is not a law unto itself.
Why?
Unit cohesion involves far more than the showers. If gays present such an “intolerable risk” than how are we able to depend upon British units, for example. Forget the showers and forget whether any Brit gays mingle with American soldiers. I’m talking about the combat effectiveness, for which unit cohesion is critical, of these Brit units that have known gays in their midst. How are they able to fight with known gays and how are we able to depend upon them in combat? There is a complete disconnect when it comes to this because if known gays DID erode unit cohesion we would be militarily stupid to rely upon the Brits or any other force without a DADT-like ban.
Again, how are the Brits, Aussies, Israelis and MOST of our NATO Allies able to maintain their effectiveness when somehow they have overcome these concerns? How can the United States rely upon Allies that have such an “intolerable risk” in their midst during combat?
Not in all cases; not for me; no.
John,
Your arguement might have some validity if they current military leaders were not using their own personal beliefs to influence public policy in this regard.
Tom:
They are free to do so in a limited manner until the order is given one way or the other. Right now military leaders like General Pace who oppose lifting DADT have the advantage of upholding existing law. If DADT is repealed that changes.
Despite your attempt to dismiss them, the question still remains: if gays openly serving present such an “intolerable risk” than how can we have conducted joint combat operations with these Allies, continue to remain allied to them in such things as NATO, etc.?
John, I would point you to this reference on the topic.
The United States deployed more than seven-eighths of the soldiers in the occupying coalition with the majority of other troops coming from the United Kingdom and the rest made up from several other allies.
And we see a similarly-overbalanced ratio in Afghanistan.
To put that in perspective, if, out of eight soldiers, you have seven committed and one who might break and run away, you’re not taking an intolerable risk. It doesn’t matter how reliable something is if you’re not really dependent on it; therefore, if our allies want to put a higher priority on diversity quotas than on military capability, that’s their problem. If they are helpful, fine; if they’re not, it’s really no biggie.
What you’re overlooking, John, is that our military is not like any other. If we knew that we had a big brother who could bail us out, we could do a lot more social experimentation as well. But because we are literally the only ones who can do what we do, we don’t have time or capacity to figure out that antimilitary queer leftists make horrible soldiers; nor can we buy the theory that gays would actually fight when the only thing heard from the “gay community” is antimilitary ranting.
If you want to break the back of DADT, you have to make it clear that the leftists and Democrats who have hijacked our name and are pushing antimilitary policies and hate rhetoric left and right are wrong, flat wrong. But that requires standing up to them, and those of us who will — you included — are a tiny, tiny minority.
SLDN, in my opinion, is utterly useless — because they won’t.
If we knew that we had a big brother who could bail us out, we could do a lot more social experimentation as well.
NDT, I am absolutely positive Israel does not think of the United States as it’s “big brother.” Israel learned long ago that they would basically need to fight for themselves, which they’ve done. They’ve also learned that they must use every citizen they’ve got.
The Israeli military is far from dependent on anyone else.
If I were under the same kind of pressure that Israel is, I think I would be using the logic that anything’s better than nothing, too.
But here in the United States, we don’t have quite that much pressure; thus, as I pointed out before, we have the luxury of not requiring the services of a group in which the vast, overwhelming majority of them obviously disdain, loathe, and want no part of the military.
John, in our Title IX and related feminist fervor, women are now allowed to serve in combat. We can congratulate ourselves for such integration, but does that serve our military well? How many combat rules and policies have had to be changed in order to accomodate that single, feel-good legislation? Further, why do male and female soldiers not live in the same barracks and share facilities?
Why should sex between soldiers remain clandestine? You’re kidding, right? Are you asking why soldiers shouldn’t be openly engaging in sexual activity? I’m not sure where you are on this question.
My point re. joint-op policy is that combat isn’t the only arena in which soldiers operate. Much of the trust needed to effectively soldier is established in the more social settings where sexuality would be a more prominent issue. You (like Goldwater) seem to be arguing that it’s only about battlefield effectiveness as if combat can be separated from all other aspects of military life. This, in my opinion, is a very narrow view of the purpose of DADT.
NDT:
Wrong. I already stated that the U.S. has been the backbone of both operations. The fact of the matter is that we could have done both without any help of our Allies and if as a nation we were so inclined we could become the mightiest empire in human history. That’s not exactly in our nature. That aside, you still didn’t address anything but attempted to shift the issue. You see it doesn’t matter whether we actually need these other countries as Allies or not, when we decided to work with them and the battle starts we are relying upon them however little that may or may not be. If the units on your flanks or wherever are compromised by an “intolerable risk” then it makes no sense whatsoever to continue in that situation. Yet time after time we team up with our Allies and ingore this “risk”, placing the lives of our soldiers in ‘jeopardy’ by depending upon units that according to the logic of proponents of DADT are incapable of full cohesion thereby meaning they are not fully effective in combat. Why?
NDT:
Again you avoid the issue at hand: does the presence of openly gay soldiers detract from the combat effectiveness of IDF units? That is the issue, not whatever dream scenario you may wish, not partisan politics, etc. Deal with that and than perhaps you’ll have a point. Until then you are spinning a bunch of BS.
NDT, how many of your gay friends are in the military? A lot of mine are. Of my last 2 ex-bf’s, one went to the Naval Academy and one served in Iraq. A guy I met recently at a nightclub that i’m going to go out on a date with, he’s 21 and in the Army. A good friend of mine also recently became a JAG. It’s like everyone is in the military, lol.
Obviously, I respect my friends and I respect the military. I do not respect DADT. It’s a terrible, harmful policy.
So, you make a gross generalization when you say “the vast, overwhelming majority of them obviously disdain, loathe, and want no part of the military.”
That is not my experience at all.
Chase, again the contradiction; you cannot cite examples of gay people succeeding in the military and then state that DADT makes that impossible.
Furthermore, the “some of my best friends are” line means nothing to me when you do not speak up against the horrible, horrible antimilitary rhetoric being pushed out in the name of gay people by the leftist gay organizations and gay Democrats.
Again you avoid the issue at hand: does the presence of openly gay soldiers detract from the combat effectiveness of IDF units?
I think it does; after all, Hizbollah fought them to a standstill.
But Israel doesn’t have the luxury of combat optimization; it needs all the bodies in uniform it can get. Hence, they don’t have a choice; a half-ass soldier is better than none at all. We don’t have to settle for half-ass.
You see it doesn’t matter whether we actually need these other countries as Allies or not, when we decided to work with them and the battle starts we are relying upon them however little that may or may not be. If the units on your flanks or wherever are compromised by an “intolerable risk” then it makes no sense whatsoever to continue in that situation.
Well, yeah, it does matter.
Generals have had to fight with allies of dubious quality for millenia. If you look at the Battle of Waterloo, for example, Wellington had a bare minimum of British soldiers, and a few corps of Belgian-Dutch that were, to be kind, not nearly of the same caliber.
So what did he do? He left British troops behind at Halle to cover his retreat and he deployed the remainder, instead of as one group, throughout the Belgian-Dutch corps — in effect, leveraging the superior strength, discipline, and firepower of his troops to stiffen the whole. He didn’t just deploy them at his rear or at his flank and worry about them collapsing; he used intelligent deployment of his own troops to significantly lessen the risk.
Same in our case. We deploy our troops to minimize the risk if our allies collapsing. That’s why the Canadians were only put in Kabul after we did the heavy lifting first, and why the British were assigned to Basra, in the comparatively-quiet and homogenous south of Iraq — all with large American forces within immediate response room.
The thing is here, John, is that our allies, in most of our deployments, are a lot like the radio in a car; they’re nice to have, they make things a bit more pleasant and productive, but we can drive quite nicely without them.
NDT:
And the NVA did even better fighting the US as did the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. In none of these cases is it ever even hinted at that gay soldiers, known or not, were the reason why. Instead it was poor political and military leadership. Care to try again or are you so wrapped up in partisanship that you’ll sell gay servicemembers down the river just to spite the Democrats?
Again you are grasping at straws. First you are comparing a largely draftee army of the early 19th-century with an all-volunteer force of the 21st. Apples and oranges. Second, the Brits had no choice against Napoleon to fight with Allies while we do. The United States has enough power and military might to take on just about anybody in this world and win if it so desired. We are not forced to use Brit or Aussie special forces units, mechanized units, etc. We do so because they have proven to be an asset on the battelfield, not a liability as you imply, and it is a politically smart thing to do. Now do you have any evidence to show that the Brits or Aussies have been a liability to us on the battlefield and that this is due to their having gay soldiers, or are you just talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about?
NDT:
Again, what does this have to do with whether gays should serve in the military? Not a damn thing.
Instead it was poor political and military leadership.
Hmmm….so you mean using political considerations and not military considerations is a bad way to run an army?
Sort of like ignoring what the armed forces themselves want to do and instead forcing on them what a small special-interest group wants?
We do so because they have proven to be an asset on the battelfield, not a liability as you imply, and it is a politically smart thing to do.
The latter is something with which I would agree.
The former is not correctly stated; they are not a liability, but they are in no way comparable to our own forces, and that is primarily because their armed forces are constantly hamstrung by political meddling.
In short, we can afford to have them around, and the damage that could happen from them failing to do their jobs is so small that it doesn’t add up to an “intolerable risk”.
Again, what does this have to do with whether gays should serve in the military? Not a damn thing.
Let me phrase it differently, John; when all that is heard from the gay community is how awful the military is, why should the military be willing to accept gay soldiers?
The “gay community” wages what can only be called all-out war on the military. They and their leftist allies ban and harass recruiters, they ban organizations like JROTC, they spit on and ban ships from being displayed as memorials in their cities; for god’s sake, leftists and gays are trying to get the Blue Angels banned from performing during San Francisco’s Fleet Week this year.
As I have said, if you want to break the back of DADT, you have to get rid of the hatemongering leftists who have hijacked “gay” as a synonym for “anti-military”. That means SLDN and others have to get off their asses and start blasting those idiot gays who are doing this sort of thing.
NDT:
Both can be but neither was the point. In all 3 examples it was a combination of the two that led to stalemate or defeat. Gay soldiers had nothing to do with it.
You mean like forcing integration? I seem to recall a certain oath these volunteers took when enlisting that says nothing about them getting a veto over public policy. In fact, the last time I checked integration was a benefit to the military, even though forced over the objections of the leadership along with the rank-and-file.
And ours are not? Where have you been since Vietnam? Heck for that matter, we find our military being hamstrung in wars past from the Revolution, to the Civil War, etc. Yet you are once more avoiding the issue. The fact remains that whether we need our Allies or not we choose to fight alongside them and depend upon them on the battlefield. So once again, where is your evidence that their having openly gay soldiers has eroded their unit cohesion and negatively effected their combat effectiveness, placing our troops in danger?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Put up or shut up. Present evidence showing they are a liability to us on the battlefield and that gay soldiers are the reason why.
You mean like forcing integration?
Tell me this, John; it is possible to serve without disclosing one’s sexual orientation, but how exactly does one serve without disclosing one’s skin color?
Furthermore, race, unlike sexual orientation, has exactly nothing to do with whether or not one is sexually attracted to and prefers to form relationships with those of the gender in which you are living in close quarters.
So once again, where is your evidence that their having openly gay soldiers has eroded their unit cohesion and negatively effected their combat effectiveness, placing our troops in danger?
Do you really think our commanders would allow that? As I mentioned before, they deploy to maximize our troops’ protection, which no doubt includes taking into account whether or not our allies are effective.
Like I said, radio in a car.
The military shouldn’t be listening to partisan hacks but the very persons who are serving and have served that happen to be gay.
They are.
And what they hear is silence as gays and their leftist “allies” ban and harass recruiters, ban organizations like JROTC, spit on and ban ships from being displayed as memorials in their cities, and trying to get the Blue Angels banned.
Makes you wonder where peoples’ loyalties lie, especially when others are spitting on, dishonoring, and calling their comrades “war criminals”.
But if SLDN spoke out against gay leftist antimilitary bigotry, they’d lose their funding.
And that’s the whole problem, John; gays have demonstrated time and again that supporting the military, supporting their comrades, and speaking out against antimilitary bigotry is trumped by being gay.
Comment by Chase
I can’t believe that you call it a “ban” when it isn’t.
TGC:
Can you be kicked out for being gay without ever even having sex? Yes you can. DADT is a ban and denying that fact doesn’t change the reality of it.
Let’s remember what the initials stand for: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
In theory – No, you can’t be kicked out for being gay. You can be kicked out for a positive act of SAYING you are gay. If you never undertake that act, then yes, you can serve. Your 100% sexual silence answers the (possible, and undesirable) sexual tension issue. That was Congress’ theory in 1993.
The theory breaks down because someone (military? DOD?) doesn’t implement it that way. There is an implied “Don’t Pursue” in there. Because they “Do Pursue”, it works out functionally like a ban.
So it’s a confused situation. DADT has been implemented or carried out as a ban… but no, it wasn’t supposed to be one. Or wouldn’t be, if they implemented it as advertised.
Of course DADT is a ban. Openly gay persons are banned from serving in the military, while openly straight persons aren’t. It’s better than prohibiting all gay persons from serving in the military, and gave the option of keeping their sexuality to themselves knowing full well their straight counterparts wouldn’t, because they didn’t have to. Maybe that was needed way back in 1993. But that time has passed now, and qualifed persons of any sexual orientation should not be barred, and should able to be just as open as their straight counterparts if they choose.
Yes, it’s true that one can hide one’s sexual orientation, but not one’s skin color. I find that in 2007, that is thankfully becoming more and more totally irrelevant. A gay person can keep their sexuality quiet. When they are out talking to their colleagues, they can play the pronoun game, or say that they don’t discuss certain personal issues and hope not to raise red flags. But regardless of how private one wants to be about their sexual orientation, they shouldn’t have to be on guard regarding this issue during their tenure in the military.
And as John said, the anti-military gay leftist stuff is totally irrelevant to the issue. If people are anti-military, it’s a free country and they can express their opinion. I can disagree with them and question how we can otherwise defend our country. And I would agree that many of these people protest against DADT out of selfishness. But I would also argue that there are degrees of persons’ dislike of the military, and in the case of some gay people, their dislike of the military could be because of the discriminatory policy. But whatever the case, I don’t necessarily see that it’s hypocritical for one to not like some organization, but accept that it’s there, and they shouldn’t be discriminatory.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair that a gay person should exempt themselves from a draft simply because he is gay. But if the current policy stands for a future draft, and an 18 year old says that he is gay and is willing to be drafted into the military, then I would have no problem with him refusing to closet himself just as his straight counterparts would. If that’s petty and selfish, then simply require ALL military personnel to keep any hint of their sexual orientation off-limits.
I don’t want anti-gay persons in the military. I want the most qualified persons who are willing to serve their country and risk their lives. I don’t want people who are qualified to serve and serve openly as to who they are, because there are gay anti-military persons. I can’t understand how that could possibly be relevant. And if it was, I don’t see how this justifies allowing gay people in the military, but only if they closet themselves.
ILC:
Yet they won’t, that much has been proven since 1993. DADT is a ban, is unnecessary and must be repealed.
OK, so, to those of you supporting DADT, I would ask you to consider this:
What if DADT applied to everyone, gay and straight? What if heterosexual people could never comment upon the attractieness of another person, or talk about their personal life, or any of these normal things. How many would slip up? Now granted, we have a little more practice at hiding this, but still, what kind of burden is that to keep the act up ALL the time? And how great is the chance of making THE mistake at some point?
And, while I cannot state certainties here, I’d wonder about the effect on unit cohesion when some people cannot participate in the above mentioned life of the unit. How can they be assimilated into the group if they can’t even fully participate in such normal activities, if they must remaint permantently withdrawn from the group in so many aspects?
I’m not saying that either of these is the “killer argument” or anything. Just asking you to consider that aspect of the whole thing.
——————————–
On another note, the whole “lots of gay people are unsupportive of the military” thing is a distraction. It’s true. It’s sad. It’s deplorable. But it’s still a distraction. Let’s try some similar formulations:
–There are lots of vocal Christians who don’t support gays, therefore gays should listen to NO Chrisitan, regardless of what that induvidual espouses.
–There are lots of vocal registered Republicans who don’t support gays, therefore a gay person should not listen to any Republican, reguardless of that induvidual’s personal views.
You could go on and on. These formulations don’t make sense, and neither does yours.
NDT:
Irrelevant. There was more opposition to blacks serving alongside whites in the military than there is right now about gays. That is the point. It isn’t about whether gays should lie about who they are, because that’s exactly what DADT demands of them, but the fact that it isn’t a relevant factor to whether they can serve.
You’re still skipping around trying desperately to avoid the point. It makes no difference what our commanders may or may not think of the abilitiy of the Brits or Aussies. The fact still remains that whatever contingency or preparations they may plan for, by allowing such ‘compromised’ units to fight alongside their own they are placing their own soldiers at risk. Combat has a great way of making the best plans go awry. Having said that, since you keep repeating this same line of BS please do offer something in evidence where our military DOES believe the Brits and Aussies are such liabilities and that their having gay soldiers is part of that reason. All you’ve done thus far is dance around making insinuations with aboslutely nothing to back them up.
That is the point. It isn’t about whether gays should lie about who they are, because that’s exactly what DADT demands of them, but the fact that it isn’t a relevant factor to whether they can serve.
But, if sexual orientation is irrelevant to service, it would never need to be discussed.
Therefore, DADT is a perfectly logical policy; sexual orientation doesn’t matter, so there’s no need to ask about it or for you to discuss it. Nor is it so obvious that it can’t help but being discussed, as is race.
The fact still remains that whatever contingency or preparations they may plan for, by allowing such ‘compromised’ units to fight alongside their own they are placing their own soldiers at risk.
And you’re still not getting it.
These troops you mentioned don’t fight “alongside” ours; they’re sent to the back lines, to safe spots away from ours (like Basra), or to hold places we’ve already captured while we go off and do other things (Kabul).
Second, it’s like any other cannon fodder; they aren’t as good as your regular troops, but they’re bodies to hold weapons. You yourself have admitted that these countries’ armed forces are inferior to ours, since ours are the best in the world.